More Capture One Difficulties

[Tizio]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't really want to learn Capture One right now. At the moment, all I want to do is convert my RWL files to DNG and work with Photoshop (a program I'm somewhat familiar with).

 

When I go to the output window in Capture One I see my RWL file but when I push the "process" button, I get the following; "Could not process DGN file" with no additional information.

 

What am I doing wrong?

 

I've used Adobe's DNG Converter without any difficulty. Presuming I can get Capture One to process my RWL files, is there some advantage that would lead me to prefer it over Adobe?

 

This are my first experiences with RAW format. I appreciate the help and advice.

 

Thanks,

 

Stephen

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[stephengilbert]

What camera is producing these files?

[robsteve]

Stephen:

 

Most raw processors will not process DNG files unless the program supports the native file format of the camera. In other words, if the camera is not supported by Capture One, converting the raw file to DNG will not make it support it.

 

I think the only exception to this is the Adobe products. For example, if you are still using CS3 and your camera is not supported by the Adobe Camera Raw version CS3 uses, you can used the latest Adobe DNG converter on the files and then open them in CS3.

 

Robert

[sandymc]

Capture One is notorious for not being able to process any DNG other than a few specific examples. Basically, Phase One have not implemented a full DNG reader, only a reader for the M8, and the specific variant of DNG they use for their DNG output. Personally, I haven't tried C1 with "RWL DNGs", but I know that the DNGs that DNG converter produces from RWLs are demosaiced, linearized files. I would be very surprised if C1 could handle those. Very, Very surprised!

 

Sandy

[Tizio]

Thank you all for your interest. I wrote to Phase One and got the following reply (see below). It seems, ah, I don't know ... unbelieveable? ... crazy?

 

I have a D-lux 4 and I installed C1 4.1 from the disc I found in the box. I updated to 4.6.1 immediately. Now they suggest reverting to the earlier version if I want to get DNGs from my RWL files.

Looks like I'll be using the Adobe software.

Thanks again.

Stephen

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ho_co]

Wait a minute! This is crazy.

 

If I understand correctly:

 

Leica gives away Capture One with the D-Lux 4 to be sure we can process the RWL files it produces, right?

 

And then Leica goes to Phase One and asks them to quit supporting the RWLs in future updates?

 

That makes no sense. I think we need clarification from someone.

 

I haven't tried Capture One 4.6, but the previous version worked adequately. Maybe Leica is asking Phase to quit supporting the D-Lux until Adobe re-writes the DNG definition to allow inclusion of the lens correction metadata in mosaicked files?

 

The version of Capture One that was downloadable when I got my D-Lux 4 end of November 2008 had a couple of quirks:

1) The DNG it produced from the D-Lux 4 RWL files didn't include the distortion and CA correction that its TIFFs from RWLs did.

2) Running DNG Recover Edges on these DNG files uncovered edge pixels as expected, but also revealed a great deal of garbage at the bottom and at the right outside the image area.

 

That made Capture One very versatile:

1) The Capture One DNG had a noticeably wider field of view than the Adobe conversions, with a barrel distortion that could be corrected if desired, but that also could be used to good visual effect.

2) The Capture One TIFF was completely corrected, with all the distortion and most (all?) of the CA removed..

 

OTOH, As you're aware, the Adobe products leave about 3% distortion and a little of the CA; so they fit in between the two outputs available from C1. According to Adobe, this is the correction Leica wanted. (Implication is that the Capture One choices were over- and over-corrected.)

 

I found it very useful to have the three choices and used all three depending on the image--Adobe for general purposes, Capture One DNGs to emphasize roundness as the barrel distortion stresses image diminution with distance (similar to fisheye performance), Capture One TIFFs to emphasize the geometric perspective of the 24 mm equivalent lens.

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Stephen--

You say you can see the RWL files but that Capture One won't process them into DNGs.

 

If you can see the RWLs (as images/thumbnails, I assume?), then Capture One is able to decipher them.

 

Can you convert them into TIFFs? After all, Leica might see that as the main strength of Capture One with the D-Lux 4.

[ho_co]

... Presuming I can get Capture One to process my RWL files, is there some advantage that would lead me to prefer it over Adobe? ...

 

Stephen--

The advantage a lot of us have found in using Capture One is that it produces better color than the Adobe converters. I normally use PS because I like its interface, but for best output I convert in C1.

 

 

Thanks for posting this. A very strange situation that I'm glad you alerted us to.

 

 

BTW--Why does Capture One Support address you as "Chris"? Maybe they sent you the answer to someone else's question?

[sf-slim]

I have a D-Lux 4 and some of the files cannot be imported into Lightroom 2.2 which works the same as the latest ACR

they can't be imported into CaptureOne either for that matter.

they are seen as a grey square and say "Unix Executable File"

 

what to do? Are they lost forever?

 

LR 2.2 claims to support D-Lux 4 with a very important caveat :

 

"**With the release of Lightroom 2.2, there is an important exception in our DNG file handling for the Panasonic DMC LX3, Panasonic DMC FX150, Panasonic DMC FZ28, Panasonic DMC-G1 and Leica D-LUX 4. In this release the native, proprietary files from these cameras can only be converted to linear DNG files. A linear DNG file has gone through a demosaic process that converts a single mosaic layer of red, green and blue channel information into three distinct layers , one for each channel. The resulting linear DNG file is approximately three times the size of a mosaic DNG file or the original proprietary file format."

 

Tree times as big is almost unacceptable.

I would do it however with just the existing lost photos. Then switch to jpeg only until these problems are sorted out.

 

Very disappointing, all worked well with the D-Lux 3.

 

Thank you for any help you can offer

[ho_co]

sf-s

Welcome to the forum! Sorry about the problem. You say "some of the files" can't be imported into Lightroom. What's the difference between those that can and those that can't?

 

I've used Capture One (haven't tried version 4.6 yet) with the D-Lux 4 with no problem.

 

I use Lightroom, DNG Converter and Photoshop almost daily with the D-Lux 4 with no problem.

 

As soon as I installed Lightroom 2.2, it began recognizing the D-Lux 4 files.

 

I can't speak to Capture One, but if the RWL files show up as Unix executables, it simply means your software isn't recognizing the file. That means you don't have the latest version of the software properly installed. Somebody else can help you with that.

 

First thing I would do is to be sure I'm using the latest version of DNG Converter (download the newest), and convert all the RWLs I have to DNG. (Or if you don't want a bunch of full-info but linearized DNGs, just convert one.) Only the latest version of ACR (which works only in CS4), Lightroom 2.2, and DNG Converter 5.2 read these files, as you said.

 

So if DNG Converter can see and convert them, Lightroom will be able to as well, as soon as you figure out where your installation went wrong.

 

 

On the other point that you bring up: You say you didn't have such troubles with earlier cameras. Well, stop and think: Those software designers at Panasonic have broken new ground with the idea of programming lens corrections in the metadata. Nobody had ever done that before, and it's a brilliant idea that works superbly IMHO. But it means that all the RAW-conversion-software designers need to go back to the drawing board. Adobe's DNG standard allowed them to process the files into a DNG that everybody's software can use, and they're working to re-specify DNG to be able to put these new data into a mosaicked file.

 

If you feel that the current DNG structure is "almost unacceptable," so be it. But I for one am delighted to see the rapid extension of what RAW files can do.

[Tizio]

Howard,

 

Thank you for your posts and for offering your expertise.

 

I've worked as an amateur with PS for many years, mostly on jpegs. I'm very excited about working with RAW (not to mention my new Leica!). The C1 issues leave me perplexed. Their "List of RAW file support" for Capture One 4.6 clearly lists the D-lux 4 (I intend to take this up with them). I'd already read about the "garbage" issue you mentioned but I (obviously) haven't experienced this. I'm also (somewhat) aware of the the advantages of the C1 TIFF. And, in fact, C1 4.6 does process my RWLs as TIFFs.

 

I agree with you, having options is where it's at. So, it appears I will have to uninstall C1 4.6 and reinstall the earlier version if I want to use this software.

 

This forum is really great, I just wish there were more hours in the day for me to delve into it.

 

Thanks again.

 

Stephen

 

PS "Chris" is my middle name. I use it as a pseudonym with people (ie websites) I don't yet know if I can trust.

[ho_co]

Stephen--

I'm glad the new Capture One will produce TIFFs from the RWL files. That's a start.

 

My guess is that Leica didn't want people to see what the lens actually output before the software got hold of it. (I saw some dumb "Leica should never allow their name on a lens this bad" comments elsewhere.) But I think if that's Leica's thinking, it's wrong-headed. I've got a number of shots where I've used the barrel distortion to advantage, and maybe even a few (IIRC) where I've also used the chromatic aberration to advantage.

 

I'd rather see Leica celebrating the unprecedented ability of the software to do those corrections instead of clamming up about it. It's a lot easier to explain the shift in technology if you can point to the sensor's original output.

 

For me, the C1 TIFFs are usually too linear and look overcorrected, while the Adobe DNG output (which according to LFI leaves 3% distortion, and according to Adobe makes all the corrections Leica wanted) usually looks about right. I was surprised to discover that, and learned from it.

 

I agree with you--choice is the issue here. With respect, this is one where I think Leica has gone too far if they've asked Phase One to hobble C1.

 

But if that's so, I think we've lost the battle. Dr Kaufmann should rethink this one IMHO.

 

Who cares what people say who are living in the past? Leica, I guess.

[Shootist]

I have a D-Lux 4 and some of the files cannot be imported into Lightroom 2.2 which works the same as the latest ACR

they can't be imported into CaptureOne either for that matter.

they are seen as a grey square and say "Unix Executable File"

 

what to do? Are they lost forever?

 

LR 2.2 claims to support D-Lux 4 with a very important caveat :

 

 

 

It seems you have "Some" corrupted files. Especially since C1 can't open them either.

Are they lost? Yes more then likely.

LR 2.2 & ACR 5.2 has no problem opening the D-L4 RAW files and saving them as JPEG's or TIFF's or sending them to PS.

It's only when you try to create a Adobe DNG file that the file get 3 X larger.

[Shootist]

I don't understand what the big deal is with creating DNG files from the D-L4 RAW files.

Why would anyone want to do this? If you create DNG files from any cameras RAW file format that file will first open in ACR before sending it to PS and yes you can do non-destructive edits to it but you can do that already with the native RAW file.

 

I also don't see why you need to revert back to a older version of C1, just to create another type of RAW file, a DNG.

 

Howard,

 

Thank you for your posts and for offering your expertise.

 

I've worked as an amateur with PS for many years, mostly on jpegs. I'm very excited about working with RAW (not to mention my new Leica!). The C1 issues leave me perplexed. Their "List of RAW file support" for Capture One 4.6 clearly lists the D-lux 4 (I intend to take this up with them). I'd already read about the "garbage" issue you mentioned but I (obviously) haven't experienced this. I'm also (somewhat) aware of the the advantages of the C1 TIFF. And, in fact, C1 4.6 does process my RWLs as TIFFs.

 

I agree with you, having options is where it's at. So, it appears I will have to uninstall C1 4.6 and reinstall the earlier version if I want to use this software.

 

This forum is really great, I just wish there were more hours in the day for me to delve into it.

 

Thanks again.

 

Stephen

 

PS "Chris" is my middle name. I use it as a pseudonym with people (ie websites) I don't yet know if I can trust.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}I've worked as an amateur with PS for many years, mostly on jpegs. I'm very excited about working with RAW (not to mention my new Leica!). The C1 issues leave me perplexed. Their "List of RAW file support" for Capture One 4.6 clearly lists the D-lux 4 (I intend to take this up with them). I'd already read about the "garbage" issue you mentioned but I (obviously) haven't experienced this. I'm also (somewhat) aware of the the advantages of the C1 TIFF. And, in fact, C1 4.6 does process my RWLs as TIFFs.

 

{snipped}

 

Stephen--dumb question from me because I'm just not getting it....

 

Why do you need to convert your RAW files to DNG? C1 will process your RAW files. Lightroom (if I understand correctly) will process your RAW files. I'm assuming ACR will as well.

 

So tell me again why you need to convert them? Is this a "gee, I need some weird non-proprietary format to back up my files in?" LOL!! If so, you're better off just archiving a TIFF from one of the other programs and keeping the original RAW in its own format.

 

Unless I'm missing something?

[ho_co]

Jamie--

Stephen may be doing as I am: I bought into the "DNG is the future-proof format" concept, according to which future software versions may no longer support raw formats for long out-of-production cameras.

 

So for any non-DNG raw file I shoot, I make in addition a DNG version, with the "embed original" option selected. I then copy both to archive discs.

 

I got into this habit without thinking and would be curious to know how you see the practice.

 

In fact, that's why I so get off to the idea that Panasonic's software engineers have brought Adobe to making changes to their supposedly 'future-proof' format. (And at the same time I recognize Adobe's perspicacity in the original DNG definition, so that it can already accommodate the RWL format, even if inelegantly.)

 

 

And Stephen, I didn't mean to jump in when the question was directed at you, but this seems such a logical procedure that I thought you might be doing the same as I. And I guess I may also be hyper-loquacious.

[Jamie Roberts]

Hi Howard,

 

Archiving in an "open" standard like DNG would be a good idea if Adobe didn't effectively own the standard in terms of applications. And if there weren't so many variants in the format that it's effectively proprietary anyway.

 

For my own use, I archive a high res / high bit depth TIFF and the original RAW file. For Canon that's their format, for Nikon that's theirs; for Leica its DNGs (of course the M8's are compressed and the DMR's aren't, so even there we see differences )

 

I think converting a RAW file to another "RAW" format is pretty much a waste of time. If there are computers in 50 years that can't read a TIFF or figure out a proprietary white balance mechanism, I'd be very surprised. If they can't, however, photography will be the least of our problems

[ho_co]

Jamie, thanks. Good points.

 

One thing that the previous version of Capture One did with the RWL files was convert to a DNG with more information than the ACR DNG does, and much more information than the Capture one TIFF.

 

By that I mean that the previous version of Capture One gave a great deal more edge information since it uncorked the full barrel distortion of the sensor output before the massaging took place.

 

That's not an argument for copying one RAW format into another, but it was a way to get a noticeable amount more data on the edges. That wasn't always helpful, of course, but it offered additional choice with the D-Lux 4.

 

I haven't tried Capture One 4.6 yet, but if that option is indeed missing, as others have reported, then I'll try to revert to the previous, more flexible one.

 

Since I don't get the hang of the C1 interface, I don't use it generally; but I was using the program for images where I wanted either better color or, in the case of the D-Lux 4, the benefit of a less-cleaned-up DNG.

[Tizio]

Jamie,

 

Thanks for you contribution.

 

It's quite likely that I have some conceptual inadequacies on this subject.

 

I guess you mean I can make adjustments (edits) on my RWL files with C1 and then output the results as a TIFF or JPEG. However, as I first said, I'm not willing (too lazy) to learn C1 at the moment.

 

PS3 will not open my RWL files. It will open DNGs. So it seems to me that I need to convert to DNG files, if I want to edit images that have the most data. I assume ACR stand for "Adobe Camera Raw" and, again, either I don't have it or I don't know where to find it.

 

I don't have Lightroom (this would mean learning a new program (PS also stands for PlayStation, LOL).

 

I'm merely a passionate amateur (un appassionato) but I do think Howard's point on options has merit.

 

I haven't even considered the archiving issues. (BTW Howard, by all means, jump right in!)

 

Thanks again. All this discussion is help me loads to clarify my ideas.

 

Stephen

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Shootist]

ACR stands for Adobe Camera RAW. It is a program included with Adobe Photoshop and for CS3 the latest version of ACR is 4.6.

If you are in Bridge and double click on a RAW camera file that is supported by your installed version of ACR it will first open in ACR.

If you have DNG files and open them in PS CS3 it first opens in ACR.

 

To make DNG files out of your D-L4 RAW file you can use the Adobe DNG converter program. Make sure you get the latest version of this program.

But it will make a file 3 times the size of the original RAW file.

 

But since you have PS CS3 you could upgrade to PS CS4 and the newest version of ACR that comes with CS4 will open your RWL D-L4 files. (Although after RE-reading your post, you say PS3, i'm not sure if you have Photoshop Version 3 or Photoshop Version CS3 which in version numbers is 10)

 

Jamie,

 

Thanks for you contribution.

 

It's quite likely that I have some conceptual inadequacies on this subject.

 

I guess you mean I can make adjustments (edits) on my RWL files with C1 and then output the results as a TIFF or JPEG. However, as I first said, I'm not willing (too lazy) to learn C1 at the moment.

 

PS3 will not open my RWL files. It will open DNGs. So it seems to me that I need to convert to DNG files, if I want to edit images that have the most data. I assume ACR stand for "Adobe Camera Raw" and, again, either I don't have it or I don't know where to find it.

 

I don't have Lightroom (this would mean learning a new program (PS also stands for PlayStation, LOL).

 

I'm merely a passionate amateur (un appassionato) but I do think Howard's point on options has merit.

 

I haven't even considered the archiving issues. (BTW Howard, by all means, jump right in!)

 

Thanks again. All this discussion is help me loads to clarify my ideas.

 

Stephen